HPX170 - is the solution to long recording times to get a HVX200a with a tape drive??

[keeganuhl]

So, I'm looking at buying either the HPX170 or the HVX200a. And I'm poor. It occurred to me that for doing event work like concerts, the tape drive in the 200a might be a necessity, seeing as I can't afford thousands of dollars worth of P2 cards. Are there other low-cost solutions to this problem for the new 170?

thanks!
keegan

[shoook]

Yeah honestly I've had my 170 for a few months now and I keep running into the problem of limited recording time.

An HVX may alleviate some of that problem but it is still SD and you still have to capture the footage; both of which suck. Here are the options you realistically have if you want HD that I know of.

1) Buy a Firestore
2) Dump the footage to a laptop
3) Buy a different camera

The option I've (and most of the 170 users) have gone with is simply dumping the footage to a laptop in the field. It isn't the most convenient solution but it will work for me until P2 becomes competitively priced or someone comes up with a workaround like the memory cards in the EX1.

[Barry_Green]

The tape drive on the HVX200 supports only DV. If you put your HPX170 in DV mode you could record over an hour of footage on the 16GB P2 card you already have. If that's not enough, a second P2 card would get you where you need to go.

Or, if you really want tape, you can go get a cheapo tape camcorder and firewire link it to your 170 just like a firestore. Set your 1394 device control to EXT and the 170 will control the tape camera...

[keeganuhl]

Is the Ex-1 better for this application? What are these memory cards you speak of?

Hmm... Does this mean I could go firewire out of the 170 and into my HV30 (canon), and record an HD signal via HDV onto miniDV tapes? That would be sort of sweet.

I thought the 200a somehow downconverted to HDV for the tape drive.

thanks!

[shoook]

Hmm... Does this mean I could go firewire out of the 170 and into my HV30 (canon), and record an HD signal via HDV onto miniDV tapes? That would be sort of sweet.



I'm sorry but that would be sort of ridiculous. miniDV is SD.

As far as recording time per $, yes, the EX1 is cheaper. I'm not very familiar with the EX1 but I'll get you a link to that memory card hack I spoke of here in a sec.

[keeganuhl]

Awesome, that would be great. But just fyi, my hv20 uses miniDV tapes to record 1080 as HDV, so MiniDV can be HD. Just gotta have the right body attached.

thanks.

[keeganuhl]

Barry,

Any idea if that would work with my HV20 - in HDV? I assume it would work fine in SD, but I wonder if I could go in via firewire or HDMI and get the HV20 to record the HD input as an HDV signal. That would be sweet.

Thanks.
Keegan

[shoook]

Awesome, that would be great. But just fyi, my hv20 uses miniDV tapes to record 1080 as HDV, so MiniDV can be HD. Just gotta have the right body attached.

thanks.

My mistake keeganuhl, I was wrong then.

[puredrifting]

You sound like the textbook example of a person who should not buy the HPX170/200. The AG-HMC150 has your number.

Dan

[David Jimerson]

Any idea if that would work with my HV20 - in HDV?

No. The HVX/HPX outputs DVCPRO HD through firewire. Not the same by a longshot.

[NC17z]

You sound like the textbook example of a person who should not buy the HPX170/200. The AG-HMC150 has your number.

Dan

You Nailed it Dan...

[keeganuhl]

From what I hear avcHD is a pain to post, and the quality is crap compared to DVCproHD. This camera needs to be able to shoot indie films as well as events. But alas, as in many circumstances, there is no easy solution, nor a cheap one.

thanks for all your thoughts.
keegan

[puredrifting]

Hi Keegan:

AVCHD is more of a pain to post than DVCProHD, but it isn't that bad if you have a newer, faster CPU and something like FCP or one of the PC programs that supports AVCHD natively.

A far as quality, I think that you are plain wrong. The camera itself is essentially the same as the HPX170 and the quality is really pretty remarkable for such an inexpensive camera. Is it 4:2:2? No. Is it intraframe? No. But depending on what you are shooting and who your audience is and what they watch your material on, you may find the 150 to have very good quality for your needs.

AVCHD is a useful format, although I prefer my HPX170. But I am shooting a doc in France in June and will be running all over the country for two weeks, following a subject. HPX170 is too large and obstrusive, workflow is all wrong for my circumstances so I will be shooting on a consumer Canon Vixia HFS100. In the end, the quality will look pretty similar to my 170 footage that it will cut with.

I love DVCProHD but if I did events, weddings or needed long shooting times. I would buy two or three 150s and go to town.

With most people in the world viewing material on the web and on SD DVD, pure picture quality is highly overrated for many users, myself sometimes included. Heck I have made more with my DVX100A this year so far than my 170, I keep getting web and corporate projects that want SD 4x3 so I put the old DVX to work.

Just sayin, unless you are going to broadcast or the big screen, HMC150 is a gem for the money.

Dan

[David Saraceno]

Barry,

Any idea if that would work with my HV20 - in HDV? I assume it would work fine in SD, but I wonder if I could go in via firewire or HDMI and get the HV20 to record the HD input as an HDV signal. That would be sweet.

Thanks.
Keegan

Why not just record with the HV20 in the first place?

[keeganuhl]

Ok, here is the deal. I totally agree with the comment, "why not just record on the HV20?" Here is a little short I shot with the HV20 and a home-made lens adapter, with Nikon lenses: http://zaps21.com/shared/LAFS/keegan_projects/06_doubledate.mov

And if I were always shooting just my own material, shorts, music videos, etc., I would just shoot with that. But it has problems of its own. The zoom control sucks, and it is a very finicky setup - not ideal for paid gigs where time is money. But the main issue is that people who might hire, 99.9% of whom aren't "in the know" don't respect the HV20 at all. The size decreases street cred considerably, and it's not "accepted." It doesn't really get you gigs, if you know what I mean. Everyone asks for "HXV200 or equivalent." I'd like to start shooting for hire and the HVX seems to be the minimum requirement. Most people are stupid about this sort of thing, and they only know what their friend has told them.

Also, I would like to shoot a feature, a web series, and other stuff for my directing reel with it and anything festival bound would benefit from the DVCproHD quality for sure - I could finish to HDCAM and it would look great. It's no substitute for renting an F900 or RED, but it is a tool that could help me pay the rent and shoot my own projects at the same time.

Maybe I just need to bite the bullet and take out a loan.

keegan

[shoook]

The way I see it is there will always be something "better" out there that you have to have. If you have an HV20 you need an HVX, if you have an HVX you need a RED, if you have a RED then you need an F900, and on and on. I understand your "street cred" argument and it may be that if your clients are all asking for HVX/EX1 then you may need to get one. But the bottom line is that great films can be made on low end cameras and crappy films can be made on great cameras. The gear is always important to a filmmaker but it isn't what makes the filmmaker.

[keeganuhl]

Agreed, and of course that is the case. But another thing that happens is that people with shoe-string budgets are usually not as professional and seasoned as those with bigger budgets. So, the clients you will attract and rates you will be able to charge with a 35mm camera package for rent are going to be vastly different than those you attract with a $5000 HD camera, and the same is true for HV20 vs. HPX170 - people are willing to pay for quality and a certain track record, even if it means nothing and their crappy script will still end up a crappy film. Get my drift? So in this case, as I'd be buying it as a tool to make money, it's less about the art and more about the economics.

[dantewaters]

Dan,

You make some great points here my friend especially with the run and gun and using the vixia HF100. I have on here in my room, and yet it's good for basic footage
that doesn't need any big screen exposure and can more than work for run and gun. I am thinking after this post 2 that having a 2nd cam just as backup or B cam
isn't a bad idea, because the vixia doesn't mix too bad the codec is pretty good.

Thanks for the words...


Hi Keegan:

AVCHD is more of a pain to post than DVCProHD, but it isn't that bad if you have a newer, faster CPU and something like FCP or one of the PC programs that supports AVCHD natively.

A far as quality, I think that you are plain wrong. The camera itself is essentially the same as the HPX170 and the quality is really pretty remarkable for such an inexpensive camera. Is it 4:2:2? No. Is it intraframe? No. But depending on what you are shooting and who your audience is and what they watch your material on, you may find the 150 to have very good quality for your needs.

AVCHD is a useful format, although I prefer my HPX170. But I am shooting a doc in France in June and will be running all over the country for two weeks, following a subject. HPX170 is too large and obstrusive, workflow is all wrong for my circumstances so I will be shooting on a consumer Canon Vixia HFS100. In the end, the quality will look pretty similar to my 170 footage that it will cut with.

I love DVCProHD but if I did events, weddings or needed long shooting times. I would buy two or three 150s and go to town.

With most people in the world viewing material on the web and on SD DVD, pure picture quality is highly overrated for many users, myself sometimes included. Heck I have made more with my DVX100A this year so far than my 170, I keep getting web and corporate projects that want SD 4x3 so I put the old DVX to work.

Just sayin, unless you are going to broadcast or the big screen, HMC150 is a gem for the money.

Dan